The Living Hall of Fame - Just Floating a Concept

[Topnotchsy]

Interesting concept. I'm not one who has a problem with the size of the Hall, so for me I don't see the purpose.

A few thoughts:
- I think it would be pretty hurtful if a living player was deselected. I know the goal of the Hall is not to worry about people's feelings, but that seems pretty cool
- Removing people would reduce the meaning of being elected
- Any time people are deselected it basically removes the credibility of the electing body
- I feel like the benefits you are looking for could be done by creating an "inner-circle HOF". Using a similar mechanism it could be limited to 30 players (or whatever number). It would also give everyone a chance to reexamine the careers of the greatest players ever, and make for a lot of fun conversation.

I think I've talked myself into the inner circle idea.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

What if there was only room on the wall for a certain number (100, 150, 200, ???) plagues?

150, man that's a lot of Plagues. The Egyptians were only visited with, like, 7, right?

OK, now I'll actually read the post, just had to get that out of the way.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Interesting idea, but I think the idea of de-selecting makes the hall less of an honor which probably runs contrary to your goal.

My big hall idea has been posted here before, with all the debate about steroids and even the dumb debate about unanimous selections there a simple method which honors the current system while alleviating some of these issues. Every voter can score a candidate from 0 to 10. to be elected you have to receive 75% of the total points available. For instance if there are 200 voters you need 1500 points for enshrinement.

To me this is a great solution for the problems mentioned above.

Example 1: you are a voter who hates the steroid era, but really there's no denying that Bonds was a likely HOF'er before he ever touched the stuff, Give him 7 points. You're saying that you have reservations without torpedoing him completely and there will likely be enough 8's, 9's and 10's to get a deserving candidate over the hump.

Example 2: Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron weren't unanimous so by God nobody will be on your watch. Instead of being left in the indefensible position of leaving Greg Maddux off your ballot entirely (really?) maybe you say, "Hey he's an obvious HOF'er, and the greatest pitcher of his era, but he's no Cy Young or Walter Johnson." Score him a 9 and voila he's not a perfect score but you aren't left looking like a jackass for leaving him off your ballot merely to ensure he doesn't score a unanimous induction.

It adds a layer of bragging rights for high scores, but makes a perfect score practically impossible, and defensibly so, while still retaining the flavor of the 75% threshold. It also makes shifts in perception more logical and incremental than a binary Yes/No system. Never understand how a guy gradually gains votes for 15 (now 10) years. What did he have a good season? But with this scoring method, lets say you go back and revisit Bert Blyleven, and realize you didn't know how much better than the average schmoe he was until you started looking at the advanced stats. So you upgrade him from a 6 to a 7 or 8. even though that is in essence switching from a No, to a Maybe or a Yes, it's a smaller leap than just flipping the switch.

[KMayUSA6060]

You're either a Hall of Famer or you're not. Plain and simple. Once you're in, you're in for good. There's a reason why there are committees for different eras - the game has changed and evolved over the years. Walter Johnson only through about 80-90 mph, and would most likely get crushed in today's game.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

You're either a Hall of Famer or you're not. Plain and simple. Once you're in, you're in for good. There's a reason why there are committees for different eras - the game has changed and evolved over the years. Walter Johnson only through about 80-90 mph, and would most likely get crushed in today's game.

Walter Johnson threw a lot harder than 90 mph. His fastball was clocked at 97 mph. The game has changed, but players really haven't evolved, training and equipment have evolved.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

You're either a Hall of Famer or you're not. Plain and simple. Once you're in, you're in for good. There's a reason why there are committees for different eras - the game has changed and evolved over the years. Walter Johnson only through about 80-90 mph, and would most likely get crushed in today's game.

WJ threw faster than that (though maybe not by much). But why would it mean he'd get crushed if your range is right? Greg Maddux didn't get crushed. Neither would "get crushed" in today's game. You make two unsubstantiated assumptions and they are both wrong.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Dewey

WJ threw faster than that (though maybe not by much). But why would it mean he'd get crushed if your range is right? Greg Maddux didn't get crushed. Neither would "get crushed" in today's game. You make two unsubstantiated assumptions and they are both wrong.

It's debatable if he threw faster.

I said he'd probably get crushed, but that's not 100% definitive. I'm just assuming, in the early days of baseball, that the overall skill and technical ability of each individual player wasn't as good as today's players. Maddux probably had much better stuff than Johnson; Johnson was great for his era because the hitters probably weren't as good. Who knows.

Nobody can be wrong without definitive proof that they are.

[frankbmd]

Arguments like the speed and effectiveness of Johnson’s fast ball in the modern era are futile. Would the dead ball era have been so dead if Kingman, Deer, Dunn & Judge (trying to avoid the PED crew and that discussion) had been playing then? It’s all speculation.

Dunn, or any of them, might have changed the hitting game before Ruth did and put up big power numbers with far fewer strikeouts, and their T206 cards would be just as valuable as the Cobbs.

If all the current major leaguers had played 111 years earlier, the Hall of Fame we see today would be entirely different. Who knows what names would be on the plaques? Most assuredly any Net54 board member would not know.

My original concept included an inner circle of immortality for this reason, but also required an interval of time to pass before achieving the most elite status.

All of the dead ball superstars would be included in the inner circle. A few of those closer to the “cut” line might drop off the board due to the unpopular concept of deselection.

WaJo was clearly one of the elite pitchers of his era and I would leave it at that, regardless of the speed of his fastball. Period.

By the way, did Babe Ruth have the optimal launch angle?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Arguments like the speed and effectiveness of Johnson’s fast ball in the modern era are futile. Would the dead ball era have been so dead if Kingman, Deer, Dunn & Judge (trying to avoid the PED crew and that discussion) had been playing then? It’s all speculation.

Dunn, or any of them, might have changed the hitting game before Ruth did and put up big power numbers with far fewer strikeouts, and their T206 cards would be just as valuable as the Cobbs.

If all the current major leaguers had played 111 years earlier, the Hall of Fame we see today would be entirely different. Who knows what names would be on the plaques? Most assuredly any Net54 board member would not know.

My original concept included an inner circle of immortality for this reason, but also required an interval of time to pass before achieving the most elite status.

All of the dead ball superstars would be included in the inner circle. A few of those closer to the “cut” line might drop off the board due to the unpopular concept of deselection.

WaJo was clearly one of the elite pitchers of his era and I would leave it at that, regardless of the speed of his fastball. Period.

By the way, did Babe Ruth have the optimal launch angle?

I think you just answered your own question, though. With the argument being futile, then it's impossible to remove players of different eras from the Hall of Fame based on modern day player performance.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

What if there was only room on the wall for a certain number (100, 150, 200, ???) plagues?

150, man that's a lot of Plagues. The Egyptians were only visited with, like, 7, right?

OK, now I'll actually read the post, just had to get that out of the way.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Interesting idea, but I think the idea of de-selecting makes the hall less of an honor which probably runs contrary to your goal.

My big hall idea has been posted here before, with all the debate about steroids and even the dumb debate about unanimous selections there a simple method which honors the current system while alleviating some of these issues. Every voter can score a candidate from 0 to 10. to be elected you have to receive 75% of the total points available. For instance if there are 200 voters you need 1500 points for enshrinement.

To me this is a great solution for the problems mentioned above.

Example 1: you are a voter who hates the steroid era, but really there's no denying that Bonds was a likely HOF'er before he ever touched the stuff, Give him 7 points. You're saying that you have reservations without torpedoing him completely and there will likely be enough 8's, 9's and 10's to get a deserving candidate over the hump.

Example 2: Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron weren't unanimous so by God nobody will be on your watch. Instead of being left in the indefensible position of leaving Greg Maddux off your ballot entirely (really?) maybe you say, "Hey he's an obvious HOF'er, and the greatest pitcher of his era, but he's no Cy Young or Walter Johnson." Score him a 9 and voila he's not a perfect score but you aren't left looking like a jackass for leaving him off your ballot merely to ensure he doesn't score a unanimous induction.

It adds a layer of bragging rights for high scores, but makes a perfect score practically impossible, and defensibly so, while still retaining the flavor of the 75% threshold. It also makes shifts in perception more logical and incremental than a binary Yes/No system. Never understand how a guy gradually gains votes for 15 (now 10) years. What did he have a good season? But with this scoring method, lets say you go back and revisit Bert Blyleven, and realize you didn't know how much better than the average schmoe he was until you started looking at the advanced stats. So you upgrade him from a 6 to a 7 or 8. even though that is in essence switching from a No, to a Maybe or a Yes, it's a smaller leap than just flipping the switch.

That leaves the decision power primarily in the hands of those who choose to cast 0s and 10s, and it wouldn't take long for the voters to realize that and for the yes/no system to be replaced, de facto, by a 0 and 10 (not 0 to 10) system.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That leaves the decision power primarily in the hands of those who choose to cast 0s and 10s, and it wouldn't take long for the voters to realize that and for the yes/no system to be replaced, de facto, by a 0 and 10 (not 0 to 10) system.

Also why results should be public, so there's some accountability for stupid votes. Obviously it's easier to defend a binary vote "no" than it is scoring a borderline player a "1"

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Also why results should be public, so there's some accountability for stupid votes. Obviously it's easier to defend a binary vote "no" than it is scoring a borderline player a "1"

I can't help but hold the conflicting views that the Hall is too bloated but I want Garvey and J.R. Richard in.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[MVSNYC]

Frank, not feelin' it. Sorry.

If someone is taken out, or deselected, as you say, it will ruin the idea of legacy and immortality. If a player is deselected, future generations will not know about them, thus the history and romance of the game will be lost.